Opinion
J-A01012-20 No. 840 EDA 2019
02-28-2020
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. COLIN IRWIN
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered March 15, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-52-CR-0000168-2018 BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and COLINS, J. DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. --------
I disagree and therefore must dissent from the scholarly, well-researched Memorandum of the majority.
Trial courts must be able to enforce their discovery orders and also to control their calendars. If they cannot, there will be anarchy in our courtrooms.
It would appear that the state police were confused as to who the chief law enforcement officer is in Pike County (obviously, the constitutionally elected District Attorney), and presumed that they may pick and choose which orders of the court to comply with. Further, the District Attorney could have served a subpoena duces tecum upon the appropriate state police parties when the state police failed to comply with trial court's order to disclose the witness statements.
I agree that the trial court's preclusion of the material testimony of the complainant and two eyewitness at trial is appropriate in light of the discovery violation committed by the Commonwealth.